>Thanks for including the photo...that was cool :) Responses below.
>
>tina carson wrote:
>
> >
> > Come on! Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot, he was even crucified with 2
> > other zealots, which, incidentally was the ONLY reason that you could be
> > crucified, to be an enemy of the Roman state. If you fall for this
>twaddle
> > about them crucifying him because the Jews wanted it, you haven't been
> > paying attention.
> > 1) If the Jews wanted him dead, they could, and would, have stoned him.
>
>There are several instances in the Gospel of John where it is recorded the
>Jews
>picked up stones to stone him, yes. That doesn't preclude the idea that
>they
>may have gone to a Roman governor to do the job for them. Remember the
>charge
>they tried to level against Christ before Pilate was that Christ was
>claiming
>Kingship, thus rivalry with Ceasar (as you say below). Hence the Jews
>shouting,
>"we have no king but Ceasar." They had to come across as loyal Roman
>subjects
>to get the Roman ruler to do what they wanted.
>
>All these details fit what you're saying if you think about it.
No, to have the Romans take out their trash, as it were would be
immasculating. If they wanted him dead, they'd have done it. Rome wanted
him dead, so he was crucified. Not because the Jews wanted it. No king
but Caesar? Please? This is Roman propoganda. No self0-respecting Jew
would have said this. Hail the guy who conquored God's land and taught us
that our God is powerless? Come on!
>
> > 2) The Romans never did anything that their occupied peoples told them
>to.
>
>I can dig up some pretty respectable scholarship that supports the Jews had
>more
>self determination than most other Romans, and that Palestine was a real
>pain in
>the butt province to govern. I think Pilate was ultimately dismissed in
>disgrace. The Romans finally got fed up and levelled the place.
>
No, the Romans leveled the place because the Jews finally got the balls to
defeat the Romans, so Romwe came down in full force. Remember, in all of
history, the Romans are the only people who have a word for "killed every
tenth man" The Jews were a pain to occupy, why would they turn to Riome to
kill a man that by Jewish law should die by stoning? Wouldn't happen.
> >
> > 3) The story about Pilot asking whicxh one to set free is a myth. The
> > Romans never did any such thing
>
>Can you prove this?
>
Yes, there is lots of evidence for Romans defying occupied people's wishes.
They kept excellent records which is why we know that crucified men were
buried in mass graves unless a bribe was paid. They were even honest about
being dishonest.
> >
> > 4) We know this because the Romans were such good record keepers, that's
>why
> > after the fall it's called the Dark Ages, because no one was keeping
>good
> > records.
>
>No working scholar today calls the period after the fall of the Roman
>Empire the
>"dark ages." They feel it is a misnomer because it exaggerates the nature
>of
>the period. There was just a discussion about this on the FICINO list, in
>fact.
>
Of course it is an overstatement, yet it holds true because no one kept
records like the Romans, we can even tell how many sheep were in a district
2000 years ago thanks to them
>Beyond this, the fact that a supporting Roman record doesn't exist isn't
>proof
>that an event recorded elsewhere didn't happen. This is an argument from
>silence. Records from antiquity are seldom exhaustive.
>
> >
> > 5) Therefore, we also know that the 4 gospels were written with
>ignorance of
> > Jewish law and with a pro-Roiman slant, leaving them blameless.
>
>How did we get from the Gospel of John to the four Gospels, and how does
>anything you say above prove "ignorance of Jewish law"? You just made
>points
>about Roman practice, not Jewish.
>
> > 1) Jesus surrounded himself with zealots.
>
>You mean like Matthew the tax collector? :)
>
> >
> > 2) where his bloodline came ferom is unimportant, what matters is the
>CLAIM
> > to royalty
>
>The bloodline is the basis of his claim. He had to be a descendant of
>David to
>be able to claim royalty.
Not the bloodline, the claim of bloodline
>
> >
> > 3) He claimed royalty, which was an automatic threat to Rome, therefore,
> > ipso facto, he himself was a rebel, and by definition, a zealot.
>
>So why was it so inconceivable that the Romans would be motivated to
>crucify
>Christ in your point 2 above?
huh? No, the romans wanted him dead because of point 2, not the Jews
>
> >
> > 4) The Pharases were villified in the Bible, because, as any good Jew
>could
> > tell you, Jesus taught Pharasitic thought. The Sadducees were
> > collaborators, like the Vichy regime under the Nazis. As were the
> > Sanhedran, who were the religious power. The Sanhedran and Sadducees
>were
> > right, of course, in that any rebellion would be crushed like bugs under
>the
> > Roman boot.
> > "all for now" tina
>
>The Sanhedrin was a ruling body composed of the Sadduccees, Pharisees, and
>Scribes. The Sadduccees were the priestly class, had little interest in
>the
>people, and it's not clear to me they were collaborators with Rome. I
>suspect
>they'd be perfectly happy so long as they could carry on their temple
>practice
>uninterrupted.
>
>Christ and the Pharisees shared a great deal in common theologically, yes,
>but
>that didn't keep Christ from pointing out the _moral_ failures of the
>Pharisees. He wasn't quite in bed with the Pharisees. They really hated
>him.
>
>Jim
>
Too much, too much, I'm done for now
tina
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Jul 25 00:00:51 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 00:18:38 EDT